Skip to main content

About this Show

Your World With Neil Cavuto

News/Business. New. (CC)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN

SOURCE

TUNER

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
704

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Montana 20, Us 9, Washington 5, America 4, Nancy Pelosi 3, Barbara Boxer 3, Garrett 2, Max Baucus 2, Advair 2, Aviva 2, Obama 2, David Axelrod 2, Canada 2, California 2, Spammed 1, Van Gogh 1, Aol 1, Grandpa 1, Steven 1, United States 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  FOX News    Your World With Neil Cavuto    News/Business. New. (CC)  

    August 14, 2009
    4:00 - 5:00pm EDT  

4:00pm
for laid-off employees, only to find out so, they were pretty much out on their own. i was wondering if what we can do to eliminate discrimination against employers, we are a lumberyard. we're packing stuff all day long. every one of my remaining seven employees are fit. why are we and i as an employer able to provide a lesser level of benefits to my employees and yet in employer with 30 employees who sit in cubicles on their butts instead of working them off get better rates? >> that is a pretty good question. so, for all of you who are
4:01pm
sitting on your butt -- no. small business is probably as vulnerable as any. one of the things that max has been working very hard on and this is not good advertised -- i want to make her that everyone is paying attention here. one of the things we're trying to do is give a substantial subsidy to help small businesses allow their employees to get health insurance. all lot of employers just like you want to do the right thing, but they are operating on small margins. they have no leverage with the insurance companies. there are two ways that we want to help. we want the small business to be able to buy into the exchange. that allows you to use the purchasing power of everyone who was in the exchange to get the best rates from the insurance companies. that would drive down the premiums that you have to pay.
4:02pm
the second thing we want to do is for employers who are doing the right thing and providing health insurance that israel, we want to give you a tax break so that it is easier for you to make your bottom line. this is something that a lot of small businesses would benefit from. no one is talking about it. since small businesses are the place of the largest job growth, it makes sense for us to provide this kind of protection. i guarantee that this will be an important component of what we pass out of washington. [applause] i only have time for one more question. i want somebody who has a concern or is skeptical about health care reform -- there we go. i know that we could find a couple here.
4:03pm
i will call on this gentleman right here. hopefully, that list is not too long. go ahead. introduce yourself. >> i am from helena, montana. i appreciate you coming here. mr. president, i make a living selling individual health- insurance. obviously, i have paid very close attention to this insurance debate. as you know, the health insurance companies are in favor of health-care reform and have a number of very good proposals before congress to work with government to provide insurance for the uninsured and cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. why is it that you have changed your strategy from talking about health care reform to health insurance reform and
4:04pm
decided to vilify the insurance companies? >> that is a fair question. first of all, you are absolutely right that the insurance companies in some cases have been constructive. i will give you a particular example. aetna has been working with us. that is absolutely true. there are other companies who have done the same. i want to be honest with you. i max will testify that in some cases, what we have seen is also funding in opposition by some other insurance companies to any kind of reform proposals. my intent is not to vilify insurance companies. if i was vilifying them, what we would be doing would be to say that private insurance has no place in the health-care market. some people believe that. i do not believe that. i have said, let's work with the existing system. we have private insurers out there. what we do have to make sure of
4:05pm
is that certain practices that are very tough on people -- those practices change. one point i want to make about insurance is, some of the reforms that we want for the insurance market are very hard to achieve and less we have everybody covered. this is the reason the insurance companies are willing to support reform because their attitude is, if we can't exclude people from pre-existing conditions, if we cannot cherry pick the healthy people from the not so healthy people. , it means that we're taking on people with expensive care. what is in it for us? if they got more customers, they are willing to make sure that they are eliminating some of these practices.
4:06pm
my answer is, i cannot do the insurance reform stuff by itself. the only way we can change some of the insurance practices that are hurting people now is to make sure that everybody is covered and everybody has a stake in it and then the insurance companies are able and willing to make some of these changes that will help people who have insurance right now. thank you for the question. [applause] all right. even though i should not do this, i'm going to take one more question. i'm going to call on this person to get the last word. >> thank you. thank you, mr. president.
4:07pm
thank you for coming here and bring your beautiful family to [unintelligible] because you were a constitutional scholar, i think it would be terrible to let you escape from montana without sharing with you the most person -- the most perfect preamble to any state constitution. >> i want to hear this. this is a good way to end or town hall. >> we the people of montana, grateful to god for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desire and to improve the quality of life, the equality of opportunity, and secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations, establish this constitution. i hope you take a look at all constitution. >> that is very nice. thank you. montana, you have been terrific.
4:08pm
i hope that this has been informative. thank you for the questions. let's get to work. thank you. neil: president obama wrapping up what was a slightly more agitated townhome form than the one he had earlier in the week on health care. this was and montana. two questions i would consider tough, but there were not even that, but they concerned health- care overhaul. he has found a more focused villain, that is health care companies. he referred to them no less than 31 times in this speech in question, saying that insurance companies have essentially been the big block in addressing health care for all americans in furthermore, saying that a big impediment on removing that impediment him moving health care for all that you cannot be
4:09pm
denied coverage from pre- existing conditions or have your coverage not carried to another job, the so-called issue of portability. it is interesting to note as well that the president wanted to take his critics head-on. of the many questions he received, only to her would be considered critical questions. the president saying that a lot of this whole drama over health care and what it is going to be providing and what it will provide has turned into an emotional gambit. the president saying that tv loves a ruckus and relegating a lot of the things that have been going on with these town hall forms to just that, a ruckus. the president says that constructive meetings are going on. again and again, he came back to this issue of insurance companies that have really
4:10pm
blocked health care for a lot of people. the precarious nature of how that its people in their hour of need. he talked about a woman who had very advanced breast cancer, but was denied coverage. a young man was getting coverage and he later died when he was denied. these may be isolated cases or extreme cases. the president has switched the debate from reforming health care as we know it to more to the point, addressing health insurance as we know it. his next to last question, a student pointed that out. he probably would be a little bit more aware of that and probably fearful of that. having said all of that, it is important to point out that while the president had a fairly
4:11pm
successful town hall meeting here, democrats by and large are dropping these things, thinking that they are a zero sum game and not worth the fuss or the trouble. and number of them are getting up on these forms, saying that they have outlived their usefulness and they might consider, in the case of one, teleconferences. it was a far cry from what nancy pelosi and other leaders were envisioning when the first talked about these town hall meetings to pitch health care. it is an important distinction as to how to pay for all of this. at one question -- he did not indicate which cable entity, did say that he could not understand how all of this would be paid for.
4:12pm
the president went into a long response about projected savings, something that other economists had disputed. he said that the balance of the savings would be coming from taxing upper income people. limiting their deductions. the president said that if you merely limited their deductions and have the phase out, that alone would cover the rest of those costs. as you know from the show and many other shows that we have done on this very issue, we did not understand that math and we could not quantify how he got there, to say that that alone would cover the costs. be that as it may, the president going full court here to try to salvage what some say is a very dicey health care reform package. the question going forward here is whether he did a good job at
4:13pm
that. we're going to have a republican view on this and then a democratic view on this. throughout, we will keep you aware on the situation on wall street. dana, if you don't mind, i want to focus a little bit on the new approach in town, the insurance companies. in email says, it was not 31 times, it was 57 times. i do not know. my numbers are not solid. insurance companies are referred to a lot. what do you make of that change imposture? >> i think we saw that last week as nancy pelosi started to get a house out of town. two weeks ago today, they decided that they were going to make a full pivot and they needed a new villain they could not get out of their own way. they decided it is the insurance
4:14pm
companies. i think the problem is that the vast majority of people are happy with their health insurance coverage. have anxiety about possibly losing it if they lose their job or get divorced. that is something that is understandable. just last spring, he had all the insurance companies in and stood up with them in the rose garden. i wonder if they feel like there was a bait and switch on them because now all of a sudden, they are the villain. it does not mean that they always act in the best interest. it does not mean that there should not be some oversight. i think what they have done instead of trying to lift up the debate and unite people, they decided that they had to have a villain. one villain is the insurance companies. the other villains are the people asking legitimate questions at these town halls. >> i want to stress how he played the insurance thing. every time when he looked at
4:15pm
insurance companies and spoke of how they have managed to mangle coverage for people, offer it and then cut back the benefits, it has resulted in people feeling very skittish about how long coverage will be around. to address your point about whether they're happy with that coverage, the president seems to be saying, there is no guarantee you'll always have it. this is what the president had to say about the insurance companies again and again. >> one man from illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer discovered that he had not discovered gallstones that he did not know about. true story. because his treatment was delayed, he died. they scour your records looking for reasons to cancel your coverage. they find minor mistakes. that cannot be allowed to happen.
4:16pm
>> the assumption is that the stories are truthful. the other is that this is commonplace. if most people are by and large happy with their insurance coverage, the president is hitting iran and their fear, that sometimes they do balked at covering certain kinds of procedures. they do make my life difficult. is this opening up a new wedge? >> i think people would recognize that there are instances where the insurance companies may not have acted in the best interests. i think that the insurance company came to the table and said that we're willing to talk about these issues. the more they have talked about this over the past several weeks, the less people are convinced. the problem that they have is they have not been able to answer any specific questions. he cannot tell you, will you really be able to keep your own doctor? they do not know that. they should not put the president in a position to say that they can.
4:17pm
they do not know. if employers to drop their insurance coverage and you do not get-your doctor anymore, the president will be in a position where he digs -- where he misled them. >> he said he will be able to keep your doctor now. you're going further out to say it is not such a guarantee a few years from now. >> it is certainly not. i think that is why people have anxiety. the woman at the end who talked about the constitution, i am not sure where she was going with that, but in watching all of these town halls in listening to some of the guests and listening to other people, this concern is real. it is deeper than just health care reform. people are concerned about the american way of life being threatened and the vilification of business. the vilification of free enterprise, that the president did today and the democrats have decided that is what they're going to target, which is insurance companies.
4:18pm
>> he was criticizing that aspect of the free enterprise system. >he also took a slap at your old boss. that was done without any idea of how to pay for it. is that true? >> if you go back and look, the facts do not fill that out. i have seen that said a couple of times before. people who have the medicare prescription drug benefit see that it costs less than anybody ever expected. there are more people participating. it has something like a 96% approval rating. what is difference between that and what the president is talking about is a fundamental different way to deal with it, which is a government-run, more socialized type medicine as opposed to the free market. people across america are more engaged candis then social
4:19pm
security, immigration reform -- i think people are very involved. in the middle of august, for the american people to be paying this much attention, they have a big problem. the more they talk, the less they convince people. >> thank you very much. now we go to a democratic strategist. it is always a pleasure to have you. i am veneered here at fox and i am in charge of carrying the nerd flag. i crunch numbers all the time, besides just sandwiches. i have to tell you, i do not know how the president arrives at his math. this is a bipartisan kind of a take with me. how do we know that limiting deductions on upper-income people is going to get used the
4:20pm
remaining cost beyond the savings and pay this whole thing off? >> we know that the current system is unsustainable. and if i can, this notion of keeping your doctor, here is why. if we keep the status quo, a lot of these people will not keep their doctor because people will drop coverage and people will be out in the cold. the president, when he put his budget out this year had not run the numbers about what limiting these deductions, so that when you and i goes to buy something that is deductible, our tax impact is the same period that to most people does not seem unfair. >> i am not here to judge the fairness of it or whether it is right to have some people pay more in taxes. what i'm asking is how you get there.
4:21pm
how does limiting deductions on people like yourself -- how does that get you the money that the congressional budget office says it does not? the savings that you would expect to score from this simply are not there and cannot be realized and those politicians who put their faith in the government extracting savings on any initiative that it undertakes are at best, wishful thinkers. >> a couple of things. first, we do not have anything close to a finished product. you are saying, how do we pay for what? we have this bill that passed a single health committee. there are committees working on this. the president put out a proposal. in his proposal, the limitation on the deductions to cover it. we could both go back and read how he arrived at that. he stated that.
4:22pm
neil: i do not want to get lost in the numbers here. here is just what i want to step back and say. i have talked to a lot of seize and economists who say, leaving aside how difficult it is for the government to extract savings, if you think that you can just leave this on the well- to-do, you have another thing coming. it just cannot be done. you cannot pick up coverage for 46 million additional people and leave it at the well-to-do and savings to do that. it cannot be done. >> your perfect -- you're forgetting the prevention savings, the fact that people live healthier lives. >neil: richard, all i'm saying is if i eat healthier, there is a chance that i might live longer.
4:23pm
>> if people smokeless, they will live longer. that is not debatable. if people eat less red meat, -- neil: this is where you are making a stretch when you go from saying you need help here, you're going to live longer to saying we're going to realize this savings, he have made a huge leap into anesthesia land. there is no way you can quantify that. you just cannot. >> we can quantify the fact that this status quo will double health care costs over the next 10 years. bill: i am not denying that. do you find it a tad in the -- disingenuous for any of these prominent health-care reformers to say that you can really have your cake and eat it to buy just going on the promised savings
4:24pm
and taking deductions away for rich people? do you really believe that? >> what i really believe is that health care system needs to be overhauled. i was going through a number of ways which that can be done. the president used the fact that people can go back into hospitals if the hospital gets paid again. it is something that we would not accept elsewhere in our lives. that is demonstrable. that is something that we have seen and therefore, the notion that can be extrapolated to the country, we will say. the alternative is something that is totally unsustainable. neil: do you find for the administration to say, do not look to canada for the example, 30 million people against 300 million people, they will cite that may oakland comparison and say if it works for them, it
4:25pm
will work for you. you cannot have it both ways. >> i do not think anyone is suggesting emulating canada. we're talking about best practices. people complain about this comparative results comparison. that is all we're talking about. if we do that across the board, that is a good thing. neil: there is nothing wrong with cost-benefit analysis, as long as you do not try to take some benefits with the actual costs. by the way, as you and i have discussed, both parties have played these numbers games. i am just the fox and heard here. for the life of me, this nerd has gone back to his rachida again and again. i have to tell you, the spreadsheet has hit the fan. i do not understand how any of
4:26pm
this is paid for. >> we may see again -- i suspect at the end of the day, sometime this fall, congress is going to get critical mass around some fundamental concepts that will pass. it is going to be important developments. neil: thank you very much for joining us. a lot more on this, including the debate over these forms to begin with. wide democratic senator barbara boxer is taking heat from taxpayers on this. major garrett just spoke with people about these unsolicited emails. ( chirp ) team three, boathouse? ( chirp ) oh yeah-- his and hers. - ( crowd gasping ) - ( chirp ) van gogh? ( chirp ) even steven. - ( chirp ) mansion. - ( chirp ) good to go. ( grunts ) timber! ( chirp ) boss? what do we do with the shih-tzu? - ( crowd gasps ) - ( chirp ) joint custody. - phew! - announcer: get work done now. communicate in less than a second with nextel direct connect. only on the now network.
4:27pm
deaf, hard of hearing and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com. ...or if you're already sick... ...or if you lose your job. your health insurance shouldn't either. so let's fix health care. if everyone's covered, we can make health care as affordable as possible. and the words "pre-existing condition" become a thing of the past... we're america's health insurance companies. supporting bipartisan reform that congress can build on. are more than words here. it's personal. i have diabetes. rodney's kid too. so we're so proud to manufacture... the accu-chekĀ® aviva meters and test strips... here in the u.s.a. plus, we've proven you'll waste 50% fewer strips... when you use our meter, which means greater savings... for people with diabetes, like me. now that's a true american value.
4:28pm
accu-chekĀ® aviva. born in the u.s.a.
4:29pm
4:30pm
[captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- neil: some of the people who received those controversial white house females are now speaking out. major garrett with the latest on that. >> most people do not view the e-mail itself or its contents as a surly as controversial, but they are curious how received in the first place. at our blog, today we have received almost 1000 comments or e-mail about this comment. i have probably received four hundred females on this topic. i do twitter. i have been too busy today to go there, but clearly this has touched a note. how do people who did not ask for correspondents from the
4:31pm
white house received it through their personal e-mail addresses? yesterday, i told you that i had agreed to give robert gibbs some email. i have made that similar requests. i have heard nothing back from robert. if anything changes, i will let you know. i talked to a gentleman who is from utah. he received an e-mail, unsolicited from david axelrod and does not have any idea how his e-mail list came into the position of the white house. he has not accessed an e-mail list on the white house or its web server. here is what he told me a few moments ago. >> i do not want my name in some list that i might be getting bad email from. i want my privacy.
4:32pm
>> he wants his privacy. i also talked to another man in nashville, tennessee. his situation is a bit different. he got a pop-up advertisement authorized by aol containing the david axelrod video. he was not even receiving it directly. it just popped up on his screen. he has not correspond with the white house. here is a bit of him from natural. >> the white house wants to put out a message, so they have a conduit to put the message out to people who have not contacted them in anyway. therefore, they are theyaol the same way that a spammer would be. >> i asked him if he felt this is what was happening to him, that he was being spammed by the white house. this is a small sample of people
4:33pm
who got into contact with us. if people have any information they think we need to know about, go to our blog. there is a comment area right there. we have submitted a freedom of information request. that process has begun. we're going to continue to follow this. it is just a simple question. how do people find their e-mail list in possession of the white house? neil: thank you very much. how did these people get on the white house list? is it legal? what is the deal? >> look no further. big brother is here. that is why this is really disturbing. it is part of a larger practice of the obama administration that
4:34pm
got itself elected on promises of transparency. is there a list? what government agency is compiling it? there are serious violations that could be at stake here. for example, a violation of the privacy act of 1974. if they are obtaining information about individuals that era exercising their first amendment rights, compiling the list, and targeting those individuals -- these people do not know why they are getting these e-mails. why is this particular person getting an e-mail from david axelrod about this? neil: even if they have no grievance, some people -- they felt that they were spam on this. neil: regardless of whether it was delivered, accidental, or they were standing on this, where is the government entity in that?
4:35pm
>> their on solid ground in terms of the government to advocate positions, even on controversial issues, for example, health care reform. they are allowed to stay their viewpoints and try to reach people, but what they cannot do is get that personal information and compile these lists targeting certain individuals. that is where the privacy issues come into play. it is very similar to some of the things that have been going on. for example, the issue of persistent tracking cookies. you have the aclu expressing concerns that this would involve mass collection of personal and private information that would violate people's rights. these are very serious questions and concerns that must be addressed by the administration. they cannot continue to ignore it because it is something they are advocating. if you log on to a government website to get information as an american that you are entitled
4:36pm
to, they might be able to lock into your computer and for a persistent amount of time, be able to have access to all of your personal information. that is disturbing. neil: thank you very much. we'll be following this again with you. on this issue of stimulus, i have corrections to make over something that i got wrong. i mischaracterized a bloomberg economic survey quoted by a very fine congressman on the show. he said that the survey credited that economic stimulus for the pickup in activity. i argue that the survey argued it, but not one economists credited the president. i was wrong and the congressman was right. several said that we needed a much more stimulus. i thought the stimulus, to which they were referring was the intervention in the markets by the fed.
4:37pm
some did, but clearly not all. it was my dad. i screwed up all along.
4:38pm
4:39pm
4:40pm
neil: barbara boxer is skipping town halls so far this summer. she is doing a book tour. my next guest is not liking this story one did. she protested at the event. what do you make of this? she is saying that -- when you have a book out, that is the priority right now. >> there are good times and bad times to do that. do you think we have some more important issues and her selling a book? i thought that was bad. neil: we have a statement from barbara boxer's office. she is concentrating on two
4:41pm
issues this recess, economic recovery and health care. she will be hosting two round tables on health care at hospitals in california. what do you make of that? she is going to have the round tables. what do you make of that? >> she mentioned that. that was one of the questions that someone had asked her. why are you not at home with your constituents? that is her typical way to take care for people, she holds round tables, but right now she had a book to promote and she was out promoting her book. neil: you are not buying it. >> at least they were out there trying. she was hiding. they had her under a blanket when they drove her in a parking lot. she was docked in the backseat
4:42pm
under a blanket hiding from everybody. bill: really? that is how i come into work. >> around the bookstores and everything. neil: what do you make -- when we hear a lot of prominent democrats saying that it is not worth the trouble, we're going to scale back, that is it. these town hall shout fest are done. >> america is crazy man. my phone rings all day long. america is really mad. that is their job. they have to be talking to them. they have to understand that stupid build. they have to be explaining it to us. it is crazy. they cannot ram it down our throats. that is not right. neil: they are saying that other points of view cannot be heard.
4:43pm
is that how they go? >> they do not go there specifically to scream. everybody starts calmly. we came there to learn. we had 500 people. had to open up the entire church. people are there because they want to know something. they are so frustrated because you ask your congressman or representative and you get the same answer. they say the same thing. anybody can go to the internet. you can go to the internet and look up in five minutes and you find out that they're telling you a half truth. they are making people crazy angry, frustrated, and that is why they are screaming. they know they are being lied to. they know they are. they do not go there to purposely disturb the meeting. they go there for their own. i'm tired of people saying that we are bossing people in.
4:44pm
that could not be farther from the truth. these are normal people. they are sometimes losing money because they are scared and they want to know. it is not right away our government is treating us. everybody's waking up. neil: i appreciate having you. deadline day for seven bailed out companies to submit executive compensation plans to the opapay czar. my next guest says that if you think this does not impact you, think again. it is not exactly roundtable. >> you could fit four of us. neil: what do you make of this boxer moved? >> the more they push back on
4:45pm
this sort of astroturf for the outrage, i think the worse is going to be for them. it is like throwing gasoline on a raging fire it makes it worse. neil: you have been on this for a while. you say the whole idea of day pay czar rears a number of possibilities. >> this is the tip of the eyes. . just listen to the campaign trail. i sincerely believe that president obama wants us to have a simpler country where there are not super wealthy. we all live a new sort of reality like out of a voltaire book where we live a simpler life. i think it is something to legitimately be afraid of. neil: these are for companies that are still on the government
4:46pm
time. >> it is easy to start with citigroup. we have a right to have a say there. i think you set a precedent. i think you sent a chill factor where initially would you do is you hammer these particular industries, but the implication to all industries, particularly health insurers tom. --, doctors, those are the companies that are going to be within the eyesight or the cross hairs. you apply to them, you see what we're doing here? the next step will be you. maybe you can have them voluntarily bring it down. if the ceo is making less, you are going to be making less. neil: financial anchors at fox, will from here on out -- that is made. thank you very much.
4:47pm
if you do not get it, demanded. the president talks to montana.
4:48pm
the odds of the "big easy" winning the u.s. open twice? 1 in 1.2 billion. the odds of him having a child diagnosed with autism?
4:49pm
4:50pm
neil: to montana right now, the president wrapping up a town hall meeting. gov. bryan schweitzer worries about costs to states like his. the governor is joining me right now. governor, very good to have you back. thank you for coming. >> it is good to be back. neil: this did not turn out to be the type of convention that some had feared. every couple of dicey questions. how do you think people in that
4:51pm
room were feeling? were they being respectful because the big guy was there? >> i am very proud of the people of montana. we showed up concerned about the way we're reforming insurance. we had people concerned about how much it would cost as usual in montana, people can be disagreeing with each other without being disagreeable. i was very proud of the people of montana. i think much can put on a good face today. neil: the question that people are focusing on is the one where the president was directly ask how we could pay for all of this. i want to get your reaction to this. >> that is all we get. you cannot tell us how you are going to pay for this. you are saving here. you're saving over there. you're going to take a little money there. you have no money. the only way you're going to get that money is to raise our
4:52pm
taxes. you said you would not. max baucus says that he does not want to put a bill out that will. that is the only way you can do that. >> you are absolutely right that i can't cover another 46 million people for free. you are right. i cannot do that. neil: his answer was that the savings are going to be realized and then limiting deductions on wealthy people will cover the costs. do you believe that? >> i can tell you this. in the united states, we pay twice as much for our health care as all the other industrialized countries. if we're paying twice as much, obviously with some cost containment, we could find some places to save money. that has to be number one in any of these bills. the president is absolutely correct. we do not have to pay more to
4:53pm
bring these new people in because we are already paying for those people. if their child gets sick, you are going to bet that they go to the emergency room and somebody pays that $5,000 for that emergency room visit. it was not person who was uninsured. it is the rest of the pool. if we can bring people in and give them some kind of a health care system where they get the children to doctors and clinics to make sure they are getting their wellness check ups and people to go to a doctor before the disease has advanced -- we know a little bit about managing money in montana. 48 states are experiencing budget deficits. california, 48%. in montana, where one of the two states that have a surplus. neil: you do know about doing that. i do not know if they know about that in washington. if you were to tell me i can extract some savings in what can -- in montana health-care related costs, i would believe
4:54pm
you. giving washington's track record, i would not. >> washington, d.c. is a big place and it is a long way away from montana. there are some lessons that we can learn in places like montana for cost containment. in montana, we use evidence based medicine. if you are in the montana pool of insured people working for the state of montana and pharmaceuticals, we use evidence-based medicine to decide which medicine you take. you get to take the one that does the most for the least. neil: let me ask you this. i hope you'll give me a straight answer. do you really think that we can pay for this with savings that the president wants to see and the only people who will have to pay more will be the rich seeing
4:55pm
their deductions limited and that is all? >> if we had 60% of the people who are uninsured and those uninsured people are getting health care, but it is the most expensive in the system and we're already paying for it by shifting that cost to the other people, it is like shooting fish in the barrel for me to find a 20% savings. if you handed all the paperwork out to us and montana, we would get it done in 10 days. neil: we are not doing that. that is the bottom line. that is what worries me. i do not need to disparage public service or those in washington. their track record is a little dicey. that is all i'm saying. >> we feel pretty comfortable in montana. another rancher like myself, max baucus, is negotiating in the finance committee. he can squeeze a penny for a full mile. neil: the angry protests, you have heard a lot of democrats
4:56pm
say, we have to stop this town hall nonsense. what do you make of that? >> people get together and people like to talk to politicians won their home on break. people like to hear what the politicians have to say and every once in awhile, somebody gets worked up. neil: nancy pelosi recently said that they are un-american. are they? >> i do not know about that. in montana, we have demonstrated that we can have people on two or three sides of the issues, we can work together. that is how we get a resolution. neil: i know you have a very hectic schedule. i appreciate having you on as always. that will do it here. we have some much more to get into a little more than an hour from now when we start really crunching these numbers. there is only one case you can get that. that is on fox business network. i will see you one hour from now
4:57pm
over there. see you then. . . .
4:58pm
i can enjoy the zoo with my grandkids. (announcer) for people with copd including chronic bronchitis, emphysema, or both, great news. advair helps significantly improve lung function. while nothing can reverse copd, advair is different from most other medications because it contains both an anti-inflammatory and a long-acting bronchodilator working together to help you breathe better. advair won't replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than twice a day. people with copd taking advair may have a higher chance of pneumonia. advair may increase your risk of osteoporosis and some eye problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking advair. we had a great day, grandpa! we sure did. ask your doctor how advair helps improve lung function for better breathing. (announcer) find out how to get your first full prescription free at advaircopd.com.
4:59pm
you all want to run your businesses more efficiently, so we've brought in a team of experts to help. one suggestion is to make your shipping more efficient with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service. call or go online for a free supply and up to $160 in offers from authorized postage vendors. shipping's a hassle! weighing every box... actually, with flat rate boxes you don't need to weigh anything under 70 pounds. if it fits, it ships for a low flat rate. ok, but i ship all over the country. you can ship anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. ship international, too. yes, but i ship hundreds of things, in all sizes. great, because flat rate boxes come in four sizes. call and we'll send a free supply, plus up to $160 in offers. when you're ready to ship, we'll even pick them up for free, no matter how many you have. priority mail flat rate boxes only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship. call or go online now to get started.